Feasibility and safety of transvaginal specimen extraction in deep endometriosis colorectal resectional surgery and analysis of risk factors for postoperative complications.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study was to demonstrate that transvaginal specimen extraction is a feasible and safe approach in colorectal resection for deep endometriosis (DE) and to assess the risk factors for postoperative complications. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included all the consecutive patients undergoing segmental bowel resection for symptomatic endometriosis at "La Paz" University Hospital (Madrid, Spain) and at "Hospital General Universitario de Valencia" (Valencia, Spain) from January 2014 to December to 2017. Patients were grouped according to specimen extraction approach into those who had transvaginal extraction (Group I) and those who had suprapubic extraction (Group II). Clinic-demographical, surgical and post-surgical data were recorded. Intra- and postoperative complications were classified according to Clavien-Dindo criteria. Postoperative data were compared between groups. Risk factors associated with surgery were investigated. RESULTS: Out of 99 female patients included (average age 36.91 ± 5.36 years), 23 patients (23.2%) had transvaginal and 76 (76.8%) had suprapubic specimen extraction. The groups were comparable regarding operative time, nodule size, level of anastomosis, hospital stay and intraoperative complications. We observed no statistically significant differences in postoperative complications and rectovaginal fistula rate between the groups. Binary logistic regression analyses determined that vaginal endometriosis is an independent risk factor for postoperative complications (OR: 2.63, 95% CI [1.10-6.48], p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Transvaginal specimen extraction is a safe and feasible technique in DE colorectal surgery and should be taken into consideration whenever vaginal endometriosis exists. Nevertheless, vaginal endometriosis can be an independent risk factor for postoperative complications in DE surgery.

Global attitudes in the management of acute appendicitis during COVID-19 pandemic: ACIE Appy Study.

BACKGROUND: Surgical strategies are being adapted to face the COVID-19 pandemic. Recommendations on the management of acute appendicitis have been based on expert opinion, but very little evidence is available. This study addressed that dearth with a snapshot of worldwide approaches to appendicitis. METHODS: The Association of Italian Surgeons in Europe designed an online survey to assess the current attitude of surgeons globally regarding the management of patients with acute appendicitis during the pandemic. Questions were divided into baseline information, hospital organization and screening, personal protective equipment, management and surgical approach, and patient presentation before versus during the pandemic. RESULTS: Of 744 answers, 709 (from 66 countries) were complete and were included in the analysis. Most hospitals were treating both patients with and those without COVID. There was variation in screening indications and modality used, with chest X-ray plus molecular testing (PCR) being the commonest (19·8 per cent). Conservative management of complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis was used by 6·6 and 2·4 per cent respectively before, but 23·7 and 5·3 per cent, during the pandemic (both P < 0·001). One-third changed their approach from laparoscopic to open surgery owing to the popular (but evidence-lacking) advice from expert groups during the initial phase of the pandemic. No agreement on how to filter surgical smoke plume during laparoscopy was identified. There was an overall reduction in the number of patients admitted with appendicitis and one-third felt that patients who did present had more severe appendicitis than they usually observe. CONCLUSION: Conservative management of mild appendicitis has been possible during the pandemic. The fact that some surgeons switched to open appendicectomy may reflect the poor guidelines that emanated in the early phase of SARS-CoV-2.

ANTECEDENTES: Las estrategias quirúrgicas están siendo adaptadas en presencia de la pandemia de la COVID-19. Las recomendaciones del tratamiento de la apendicitis aguda se han basado en la opinión de expertos, pero hay muy poca evidencia disponible. Este estudio abordó este aspecto a través de una visión de los enfoques mundiales de la cirugía de la apendicitis. MÉTODOS: La Asociación de Cirujanos Italianos en Europa (ACIE) diseñó una encuesta electrónica en línea para evaluar la actitud actual de los cirujanos a nivel mundial con respecto al manejo de pacientes con apendicitis aguda durante la pandemia. Las preguntas se dividieron en información basal, organización del hospital y cribaje, equipo de protección personal, manejo y abordaje quirúrgico, así como las características de presentación del paciente antes y durante de la pandemia. Se utilizó una prueba de ji al cuadrado para las comparaciones. RESULTADOS: De 744 respuestas, se habían completado 709 (66 países) cuestionarios, los datos de los cuales se incluyeron en el estudio. La mayoría de los hospitales estaban tratando a pacientes con y sin COVID. Hubo variabilidad en las indicaciones de cribaje de la COVID-19 y en la modalidad utilizada, siendo la tomografía computarizada (CT) torácica y el análisis molecular (PCR) (18,1%) las pruebas utilizadas con más frecuencia. El tratamiento conservador de la apendicitis complicada y no complicada se utilizó en un 6,6% y un 2,4% antes de la pandemia frente a un 23,7% y un 5,3% durante la pandemia (P < 0.0001). Un tercio de los encuestados cambió la cirugía laparoscópica a cirugía abierta debido a las recomendaciones de los grupos de expertos (pero carente de evidencia científica) durante la fase inicial de la pandemia. No hubo acuerdo en cómo filtrar el humo generado por la laparoscopia. Hubo una reducción general del número de pacientes ingresados con apendicitis y un tercio consideró que los pacientes atendidos presentaban una apendicitis más grave que las comúnmente observadas. CONCLUSIÓN: La pandemia ha demostrado que ha sido posible el tratamiento conservador de la apendicitis leve. El hecho de que algunos cirujanos cambiaran a una apendicectomía abierta podría ser el reflejo de las pautas deficientes que se propusieron en la fase inicial del SARS-CoV2.

Robotic vs laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancers: has a paradigm change occurred? A systematic review by updated meta-analysis.

AIM: The debate about the oncological adequacy, safety and efficiency of robotic vs laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancers continues. Therefore, an updated, traditional and cumulative meta-analysis was performed with the aim of assessing the new evidence on this topic. METHOD: A systematic search of the literature for data pertaining to the last 25 years was performed. Fixed- and random-effects models were used to cumulatively assess the accumulation of evidence over time. RESULTS: Patients with a significantly higher body mass index (BMI), tumours located approximately 1 cm further distally and more patients undergoing neoadjuvant therapy were included in the robotic total mesorectal excision (RTME) cohort compared with those in the laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) cohort [RTME, mean difference (MD) = 0.22 (0.07, 0.36), P = 0.005; LTME, MD = -0.97 (-1.57, 0.36), P < 0.002; OR = 1.47 (1.11, 1.93), P = 0.006]. Significantly lower conversion rates to open surgery were observed in the RTME cohort than in the LTME cohort [OR = 0.33 (0.24, 0.46), P < 0.001]. Operative time in the LTME cohort was significantly reduced (by 50 min) compared with the RTME cohort. Subgroup analysis of the three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) challenged all the significant results of the main analysis and demonstrated nonsignificant differences between the RTME cohort and LTME cohort. CONCLUSION: Although the RTME cohort included patients with a significantly higher BMI, more distal tumours and more patients undergoing neoadjuvant therapy, this cohort demonstrated lower conversion rates to open surgery when compared with the LTME cohort. However, subgroup analysis of the RCTs demonstrated nonsignificant differences between the two procedures.

Coronavirus pandemic and colorectal surgery: practical advice based on the Italian experience.

AIM: The current COVID-19 pandemic is challenging healthcare systems at a global level. We provide a practical strategy to reorganize pathways of emergency and elective colorectal surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHOD: The authors, all from areas affected by the COVID-19 emergency, brainstormed remotely to define the key-points to be discussed. Tasks were assigned, concerning specific aspects of colorectal surgery during the pandemic, including the administrative management of the crisis in Italy. The recommendations (based on experience and on the limited evidence available) were collated and summarized. RESULTS: Little is known about the transmission of COVID-19, but it has shown a rapid spread. It is prudent to stop non-cancer procedures and prioritize urgent cancer treatment. Endoscopy and proctological procedures should be performed highly selectively. When dealing with colorectal emergencies, a conservative approach is advised. Specific procedures should be followed when operating on COVID-19-patients, using dedicated personal protective equipment and adhering to specific rules. Some policies are described, including minimally-invasive surgery. These policies outline the strict regulation of entry/ exit into theatres and operating building as well as advice on performing procedures safely to reduce risk of spreading the virus. It is likely that a reorganization of health system is required, both at central and local levels. A description of the strategy adopted in Italy is provided. CONCLUSION: Evidence on the management of patients needing surgery for colorectal conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic is currently lacking. Lessons learnt from healthcare professionals that have managed high volumes of surgical patients during the pandemic could be useful to mitigate some risks and reduce exposure to other patients, public and healthcare staff.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the anatomical variants of the left colic artery.

AIM: To provide a comprehensive evidence-based assessment of the anatomical variations of the left colic artery (LCA). METHOD: A thorough systematic search of the literature up until 1 April 2019 was conducted on the electronic databases PubMed, SCOPUS and Web of Science (WOS) to identify studies eligible for inclusion. Data were extracted and pooled into a meta-analysis using the Metafor package in R. The primary outcomes of interest were the absence of the LCA and the anatomical variants of its origin. The secondary outcomes were the distance (mean ± SD) between the origin of the inferior mesenteric artery (OIMA) and the origin of the left colic artery (OLCA). RESULTS: A total of 19 studies (n = 2040 patients) were included. The pooled prevalence estimate (PPE) of LCA absence was 1.2% (95% CI 0.0-3.6%). Across participants with either a Type I or Type II LCA, the PPE of a Type I LCA was 49.0% (95% CI 40.2-57.8%). The PPE of a Type II LCA was therefore 51.0%. The pooled mean distance from the OIMA to the OLCA was 40.41 mm (95 CI% 38.69-42.12 mm). The pooled mean length of a Type I LCA was 39.12 mm (95% CI 36.70-41.53 mm) while the pooled mean length of a Type IIa and Type IIb LCA was 41.43 mm (95% CI 36.90-43.27 mm) and 39.64 mm (95% CI 37.68-41.59 mm), respectively. CONCLUSION: Although the absence of the LCA is a rare occurrence (PPE 1.2%), it may be associated with an important risk of anastomotic leakage as a result of insufficient vascularization of the proximal colonic conduit. It is also necessary to distinguish variants I and II of Latarjet, the frequency of which is identical, with division of the LCA being technically more straightforward in variant I of Latarjet. Surgeons should be aware that technical difficulties are likely to be more common with variant II of Latarjet, as LCA ligation may be more difficult due to its close proximity to the inferior mesenteric vein (IMV).

European Society of Coloproctology: guidelines for the management of diverticular disease of the colon.

AIM: The goal of this European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP) guideline project is to give an overview of the existing evidence on the management of diverticular disease, primarily as a guidance to surgeons. METHODS: The guideline was developed during several working phases including three voting rounds and one consensus meeting. The two project leads (JKS and EA) appointed by the ESCP guideline committee together with one member of the guideline committee (WB) agreed on the methodology, decided on six themes for working groups (WGs) and drafted a list of research questions. Senior WG members, mostly colorectal surgeons within the ESCP, were invited based on publication records and geographical aspects. Other specialties were included in the WGs where relevant. In addition, one trainee or PhD fellow was invited in each WG. All six WGs revised the research questions if necessary, did a literature search, created evidence tables where feasible, and drafted supporting text to each research question and statement. The text and statement proposals from each WG were arranged as one document by the first and last authors before online voting by all authors in two rounds. For the second voting ESCP national representatives were also invited. More than 90% agreement was considered a consensus. The final phrasing of the statements with < 90% agreement was discussed in a consensus meeting at the ESCP annual meeting in Vienna in September 2019. Thereafter, the first and the last author drafted the final text of the guideline and circulated it for final approval and for a third and final online voting of rephrased statements. RESULTS: This guideline contains 38 evidence based consensus statements on the management of diverticular disease. CONCLUSION: This international, multidisciplinary guideline provides an up to date summary of the current knowledge of the management of diverticular disease as a guidance for clinicians and patients.

Correction to: Mesoglycan for pain control after open excisional HAEMOrrhoidectomy (MeHAEMO): an observational multicentre study on behalf of the Italian Society of Colorectal Surgery (SICCR).

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article.

Mesoglycan for pain control after open excisional HAEMOrrhoidectomy (MeHAEMO): an observational multicentre study on behalf of the Italian Society of Colorectal Surgery (SICCR).

BACKGROUND: Excisional haemorrhoidectomy is the gold standard technique in patients with III and IV degree haemorrhoidal disease (HD). However, it is associated with a significant rate of post-operative pain. The aim of our study was to evaluate the efficacy of mesoglycan in the post-operative period of patients who underwent open excisional diathermy haemorrhoidectomy (OEH). METHODS: This was a retrospective multicentre observational study. Three hundred ninety-eight patients from sixteen colorectal referral centres who underwent OEH for III and IV HD were enrolled. All patients were followed-up on the first post-operative day (T1) and after 1 week (T2), 3 weeks (T3) and 6 weeks (T4). BMI, habits, SF-12 questionnaire, VAS at rest (VASs), after defecation (VASd), and after anorectal digital examination (VASe), bleeding and thrombosis, time to surgical wound healing and autonomy were evaluated. RESULTS: In the mesoglycan group, post-operative thrombosis was significantly reduced at T2 (p < 0.05) and T3 (p < 0.005), and all patients experienced less post-operative pain at each time point (p < 0.001 except for VASe T4 p = 0.003). There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding the time to surgical wound healing or post-operative bleeding. There was an early recovery of autonomy in the mesoglycan group in all three follow-up periods (T2 p = 0.016; T3 p = 0.002; T4 p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: The use of mesoglycan led to a significant reduction in post-operative thrombosis and pain with consequent early resumption of autonomy. Trial registration NCT04481698-Mesoglycan for Pain Control After Open Excisional HAEMOrrhoidectomy (MeHAEMO) https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04481698?term=Mesoglycan+for+Pain+Control+After+Open+Excisional+HAEMOrrhoidectomy+%28MeHAEMO%29&draw=2&rank=1.

Sigmoid resection for diverticular disease - to ligate or to preserve the inferior mesenteric artery? Results of a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM: In colorectal cancer, ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) is a standard surgical approach. In contrast, ligation of the IMA is not mandatory during treatment of diverticular disease. The object of this meta-analysis was to assess if preservation of the IMA reduces the risk of anastomotic leakage. METHOD: A search was performed up to August 2018 using the following electronic databases: MEDLINE/PubMed, ISI Web of Knowledge and Scopus. The measures of treatment effect utilized risk ratios for dichotomous variables with calculation of the 95% CI. Data analysis was performed using the meta-analysis software Review Manager 5.3. RESULTS: Eight studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis: two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and six non-RCTs with 2190 patients (IMA preservation 1353, ligation 837). The rate of anastomotic leakage was higher in the IMA ligation group (6%) than the IMA preservation group (2.4%), but this difference was not statistically significant [risk ratio (RR) 0.59, 95% CI 0.26-1.33, I2  = 55%]. The conversion to laparotomy was significantly lower in the IMA ligation group (5.1%) than in the IMA preservation group (9%) (RR 1.74, 95% CI 1.14-2.65, I2  = 0%). Regarding the other outcomes (anastomotic bleeding, bowel injury and splenic damage), no significant differences between the two techniques were observed. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis failed to demonstrate a statistically significant difference in the anastomotic leakage rate when comparing IMA preservation with IMA ligation. Thus, to date there is insufficient evidence to recommend the IMA-preserving technique as mandatory in resection for left-sided colonic diverticular disease.

Pancreas-sparing, ampulla-preserving duodenectomy for major duodenal (D1-D2) perforations.

BACKGROUND: Ideal surgical treatment for acute duodenal injuries should offer a definitive treatment, with low morbidity and mortality. It should be simple and easily reproducible by acute care surgeons in an emergency. Duodenal injury, due to major perforated or bleeding peptic ulcers or iatrogenic/traumatic perforation, represents a surgical challenge, with high morbidity and mortality. The aim was to review definitive surgery with pancreas-sparing, ampulla-preserving duodenectomy for these patients. METHODS: Pancreas-sparing, ampulla-preserving D1-D2 duodenectomy was used for patients presenting with major duodenal injuries over a 5-year interval. The ampulla was identified and preserved using a transcystic/transpapillary tube. The outcomes were recorded. RESULTS: Ten patients were treated with this technique; seven had perforated or bleeding peptic ulcers, two had iatrogenic perforations and one blunt abdominal trauma. Their mean age was 78 (range 65-84) years. Four patients were haemodynamically unstable. The location of the duodenal injury was always D1 and/or D2, above or in close proximity to the ampulla of Vater. The surgical approach was open in nine patients and laparoscopic in one. The mean duration of surgery was 264 (range 170-377) min. All patients were transferred to the ICU after surgery (mean ICU stay 4·4 (range 1-11) days), and the overall mean hospital stay was 17·8 (range 10-32) days. Six patients developed major postoperative complications: cardiorespiratory failure in five and gastrointestinal complications in four. Surgical reoperation was needed in one patient for postoperative necrotizing and bleeding pancreatitis. Two patients died from their complications. CONCLUSION: Pancreas-sparing, ampulla-preserving D1-D2 duodenectomy for emergency treatment of major duodenal perforations is feasible and associated with satisfactory outcomes.

Multicentre international trial of laparoscopic lavage for Hinchey III acute diverticulitis (LLO Study).

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic lavage was proposed in the 1990s to treat purulent peritonitis in patients with perforated acute diverticulitis. Prospective randomized trials had mixed results. The aim of this study was to determine the success rate of laparoscopic lavage in sepsis control and to identify a group of patients that could potentially benefit from this treatment. METHODS: This retrospective multicentre international study included consecutive patients from 24 centres who underwent laparoscopic lavage from 2005 to 2015. RESULTS: A total of 404 patients were included, 231 of whom had Hinchey III acute diverticulitis. Sepsis control was achieved in 172 patients (74·5 per cent), and was associated with lower Mannheim Peritonitis Index score and ASA grade, no evidence of free perforation, absence of extensive adhesiolysis and previous episodes of diverticulitis. The operation was immediately converted to open surgery in 19 patients. Among 212 patients who underwent laparoscopic lavage, the morbidity rate was 33·0 per cent; the reoperation rate was 13·7 per cent and the 30-day mortality rate 1·9 per cent. Twenty-one patients required readmission for early complications, of whom 11 underwent further surgery and one died. Of the 172 patients discharged uneventfully after laparoscopic lavage, a recurrent episode of acute diverticulitis was registered in 46 (26·7 per cent), at a mean of 11 (range 2-108) months. Relapse was associated with younger age, female sex and previous episodes of acute diverticulitis. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic lavage showed a high rate of successful sepsis control in selected patients with perforated Hinchey III acute diverticulitis affected by peritonitis, with low rates of operative mortality, reoperation and stoma formation.

Intracorporeal anastomoses in emergency laparoscopic colorectal surgery from a series of 59 cases: where and how to do it - a technical note and video.

AIM: Laparoscopy offers the benefits of minimally invasive surgery and faster recovery. Acute surgical patients may potentially benefit from the great advantages of emergency laparoscopy, which is more clinically relevant in acute than elective patients. Fashioning a laparoscopic intracorporeal anastomosis (ICA) after emergent colorectal resection, whenever technically feasible and not contraindicated by the patient's general and haemodynamic condition, is a most challenging technical skill. METHOD: During the period 2010-2016, 59 patients underwent a laparoscopic procedure for colorectal emergency in an acute care setting by a single operating surgeon with advanced laparoscopic skills and specific expertise in both colorectal surgery and acute care surgery. This series includes 32 laparoscopic right colectomies (12 for obstruction and 20 for perforation/peritonitis) and 27 left colectomies (6 for obstruction and 21 for perforation/peritonitis). Twenty-eight ileocolic side-to-side ICA, and 27 left colonic ICA (3 colocolic, 24 colorectal) were performed. RESULTS: Reasonably good postoperative outcomes were observed in the entire series of 59 laparoscopic colectomies performed in an urgent setting. Overall, the major morbidity rate in the entire group was 16.9% (10/59) with an incidence of intra-abdominal abscess of 11.8% (7/59); the overall leak rate was 3.4% (2/59). The re-operation rate was 3.4% (2/59). A video included in the Supporting Information shows five different sites and techniques for ICA and describes technical details with tips and tricks. All patients shown in the video had an uneventful postoperative recovery and were managed postoperatively according to enhanced recovery after surgery protocols. CONCLUSION: This case series illustrates all possible sites and techniques for colonic ICA in an emergency setting. All colorectal and acute care surgeons should have laparoscopic suturing skills.

A novel technique for enterotomy closure in stapled laparoscopic intracorporeal anastomosis.

AIM: The proximal edge of the enterotomy in a side-to-side anastomosis has been shown to be the site at highest risk of leakage. Several methods have been described to overcome this vulnerability. The technical challenge of intra-corporeal anastomosis (ICA) is to re-create angles between tissues and instruments, similar to those in an open anastomosis. The axis between the suture line and the needle driver is paramount and this angle should be < 45°. METHOD: The crotch stitch of the enterotomy is difficult because of the narrow space between the loops and the depth of the anastomosis. The usual technique is suturing right-handed, 'out-in and in-out', colonic edge first to small bowel. The risk of suture misplacement (e.g. 'out-in/out-in' or 'out-out') is similar to open procedures but laparoscopically the second bite is challenging, due to the straight needle-driver. This may lead to asymmetrical closure of the corner resulting in a slightly larger angle on the bowel side and a potential postoperative leak/fistula. Rotating the small bowel loop to counterbalance this issue, risks tearing of the staple line. The rationale is that starting with a back-handed stitch and taking the small bowel edge first would allow the necessary acute angled bite to be achieved. Subsequently, mounting the needle right-handed for taking the colonic edge also allows achievement of an acute angled bite. RESULTS: Our novel technique, named the 'back-handed, left-to-right stitch' technique, is intended to achieve symmetrical approximation of the ileal and colonic edges during laparoscopy, with an optimal closure of the deepest extremity of the enterotomy. Such a stitch, used in a series of 10 patients, may be useful to avoid leaving an opening within this angle and/or to avoid potential technical pitfalls when closing the deepest apex of the enterotomy. CONCLUSION: This 'back-handed, left-to-right' stitch described here allows a properly angled closure of the proximal edge of the enterotomy and a safe approximation of the corner of the enterotomy in a side-to-side ICA.

Laparoscopic lavage versus surgical resection for acute diverticulitis with generalised peritonitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

This systematic review and meta-analysis investigates current evidence on the therapeutic role of laparoscopic lavage in the management of diverticular peritonitis. A systematic review of the literature was performed on PubMed until June 2016, according to preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines. All randomised controlled trials comparing laparoscopic lavage with surgical resection, irrespective of anastomosis or stoma formation, were analysed. After assessment of titles and full text, 3 randomised trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Overall the quality of evidence was low because of serious concerns regarding the risk of bias and imprecision. In the laparoscopic lavage group, there was a statistically significant higher rate of postoperative intra-abdominal abscess (RR 2.54, 95% CI 1.34-4.83), a lower rate of postoperative wound infection (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.02-0.51), and a shorter length of postoperative hospital stay during index admission (WMD = -2.03, 95% CI -2.59 to -1.47). There were no statistically significant differences in terms of postoperative mortality at index admission or within 30 days from intervention in all Hinchey stages and in Hinchey stage III, postoperative mortality at 12 months, surgical reintervention at index admission or within 30-90 days from index intervention, stoma rate at 12 months, or adverse events within 90 days of any Clavien-Dindo grade. The surgical reintervention rate at 12 months from index intervention was significantly lower in the laparoscopic lavage group (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.38-0.86), but these data included emergency reintervention and planned intervention (stoma reversal). This systematic review and meta-analysis did not demonstrate any significant difference between laparoscopic peritoneal lavage and traditional surgical resection in patients with peritonitis from perforated diverticular disease, in terms of postoperative mortality and early reoperation rate. Laparoscopic lavage was associated with a lower rate of stoma formation. However, the finding of a significantly higher rate of postoperative intra-abdominal abscess in patients who underwent laparoscopic lavage compared to those who underwent surgical resection is of concern. Since the aim of surgery in patients with peritonitis is to treat the sepsis, if one technique is associated with more postoperative abscesses, then the technique is ineffective. Even so, laparoscopic lavage does not appear fundamentally inferior to traditional surgical resection and this technique may achieve reasonable outcomes with minimal invasiveness.

A systematic analysis of controlled clinical trials using the NiTi CAR™ compression ring in colorectal anastomoses.

Anastomotic leak following colorectal surgery can be a devastating adverse event. The ideal stapling device should be capable of rapid creation of an anastomosis with serosal apposition without the persistence of a foreign body or a foreign body reaction which potentially contribute to early anastomotic dehiscence or late anastomotic stricture. A systematic review was performed examining available data on controlled randomized and non-randomized trials assessing the NiTi compression anastomosis ring-(NiTi CAR™) (NiTi Solutions, Netanyah Israel) in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) standards. A protocol for this meta-analysis has been registered on PROSPERO (CRD42016050934). The initial search yielded 45 potentially relevant articles. After screening titles and abstracts for relevance and assessment for eligibility, 39 of these articles were eventually excluded leaving 6 studies for analysis in the review. Regarding the primary outcome measure, the overall anastomotic leak rate was 2.2% (5/230) in the compression anastomosis group compared with 3% (10/335) in the conventional anastomosis group; this difference was not statistically significant (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.25-2.24; participants = 565; studies = 6; I 2 = 0%). There were no statistically significant differences between compression and conventional anastomoses in any of the secondary outcomes. This review was unable to demonstrate any statistically significant differences in favor of the compression anastomosis technique over conventional manual or stapled mechanical anastomoses.